It is important for writers to distinguish between restrictive and nonrestrictive appositives. A noun or noun phrase is said to be in apposition when it is adjacent to a noun or phrase that describes the first one. But whether an appositive is restrictive, or essential to the sentence, or nonrestrictive, or nonessential, determines whether it is punctuated to set it off from another noun that refers to the same idea — bracketed by a pair of commas (or parentheses or em dashes).
For example, take a look at this sentence: “Here’s what the CEO of Chrysler Sergio Marchionne said to his employees in a blog post.” “The CEO of Chrysler” and “Sergio Marchionne” are one and the same — these appositives describe the same entity — but the syntax implies that “CEO of Chrysler” could apply to more than one person, and Marchionne is one of them, so the name or the title needs to be framed by commas to respresent that it can be excised without adversely affecting the sentence. This can be accomplished in one of several ways:
“Here’s what the CEO of Chrysler, Sergio Marchionne, said to his employees in a blog post.”
“Here’s what Sergio Marchionne, (the) CEO of Chrysler, said to his employees in a blog post.” (The optional the is often omitted in journalistic contexts and retained in more formal writing.)
“Here’s what Sergio Marchionne, Chrysler’s CEO, said to his employees in a blog post.” (This is a less formal variant of the previous two options.)
In any of these sentences, the words bracketed by commas can be omitted so that only the person’s name or his title remains.
A restrictive appositive, meanwhile, is followed directly by the corresponding noun or noun phrase without intervening punctuation, and no comma should follow that other noun or noun phrase, either: “Here’s what Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said to his employees in a blog post.” (Here, the idea that Chrysler has a CEO, and his name is Sergio Marchionne, is expressed.)
The first sentence in each of the following pairs originally appeared in a printed or online publication with commas framing the proper noun as if it was a nonrestrictive appositive — an error, and a distressingly common one (corrected here). But notice below the differences between the versions labeled “Restrictive” and those marked as “Nonrestrictive.” Remember, in a restrictive clause, both the appositive and the proper name it applies to are essential; without either one, the sentence is incomplete. However, a nonrestrictive appositive, being parenthetical, can be omitted without altering the integrity of the sentence.
Restrictive: “Ex-reservist and current war gamer Mike Brown admits his battle tactics may be a bit too aggressive for a real-life situation.”
Nonrestrictive: “Mike Brown, an ex-reservist and current war gamer, admits his battle tactics may be a bit too aggressive for a real-life situation.”
Restrictive: “Kitchen queen Nigella Lawson comes to town, shops, chops, cooks, and raves about our produce.”
Nonrestrictive: “Nigella Lawson, the kitchen queen, comes to town, shops, chops, cooks, and raves about our produce.”
Restrictive: “Conservative radio jock Michael Savage gets his own TV show.”
Nonrestrictive: “A conservative radio jock, Michael Savage, gets his own TV show.” (The person’s name can come first, as in the previous examples, without a shift in meaning, though the focus changes.)
Restrictive: “The San Francisco–based schooner C. A. Thayer begins a $9.6 million overhaul.”
Nonrestrictive: “The C. A. Thayer, a San Francisco–based schooner, begins a $9.6 million overhaul.” (If the schooner has already been referenced generically, the sentence should read something like this: “The San Francisco–based schooner, the C. A. Thayer, begins a $9.6 million overhaul.”)
Restrictive: “The Emeryville studio Pixar hopes to cash in on its fish flick.”
Nonrestrictive: “Pixar, the Emeryville studio, hopes to cash in on its fish flick.” (The construction “The Emeryville studio, Pixar, hopes to cash in on its fish flick” is correct only if two or more studios, each located in a different city, have already been mentioned, or if the studio has been referred to by location but not by name.)
Restrictive: “Bryan Young is editor of the blog Big Shiny Robot.”
Nonrestrictive: “Bryan Young is editor of the blog, Big Shiny Robot.” (Here, the appositives are “the blog” and “Big Shiny Robot.” This version is correct only if the blog has already been mentioned, but not by name. If not, the comma signals, fallaciously, that Big Shiny Robot is “the blog” — the only blog in existence. It also implies, erroneously, that “Bryan Young is editor of the blog” is sufficient information.)
“Here’s what Sergio Marchionne, Chrysler’s CEO, said to his employees in a blog post.” (This is a less formal variant of the previous two options.)
This must be EXTREMELY informal. I argue that inanimate objects and abstract entities (e.g. corporations) are incapable of possessing anything, hence they do not have any possessive cases. This was what I was taught in school during the 1960s and 70s, and it always made sense to me. Hence, “Chrysler’s” is impossible, and he is the “CEO of Chrysler”.
Likewise, we have all of these:
An Act of Congress, a ruling of the Supreme Court, an act of the Executive Branch, the Army of the United States, the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom, the Royal Navy of Norway, the splitting of the atom, the Fall of the Roman Empire, the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire, the creation of the Universe, the end of time.
None of these make any sense: Congress’s Act, the atom’s splitting, the Roman Empire’s Fall, the Universe’s creation, time’s end.
All of these abstract or inanimate entities are incable of possessing anything.
@D.A.W. – “of” in this sense is just as much as possessive as genitive “s”. English has two possessive forms. We got one from Anglo-Saxon and the other from French (I think). While it is true that we generally use “of” for inanimate objects and genitive “s” for people, there are plenty of exceptions, and whether we use one or the other depends much more on custom than on logic. For example, we can talk about “a ship’s captain”, but to talk of “an airliner’s pilot” sounds a bit strange. We can talk of “the UK’s record on human rights” and “Britain’s minorities”, but don’t usually say “the UK’s government” or “Britain’s people”. As for “Chrysler’s CEO”, that is absolutely standard English.
But my main point is about commas. If you go on the principle that a comma represents a pause (and a semicolon represents a longer pause), rather than learning long lists of rules as to when to use commas, I find everything falls into place. When we use appositives in speech, we do in fact pause slightly, whereas in your descriptions, we wouldn’t. Using this principle nearly always coincides with the rules.
I would suggest that when a writer wants the reader to pause slightly, they should use a comma whether or not the rules countenance it, and if they want the readers to pause longer, go for it, use a semicolon.
Many of your examples for descriptions run afoul of Bryan Gardner’s proscription against “false titles” – I think that’s what he calls them. He and The New Yorker would instead add “the” to complete the description:
“The kitchen queen Nigella Lawson…”
“The conservative radio jock Michael Savage …”
He contends that “kitchen queen,” unlike “Ambassador,” “Doctor,” or “Lord,” is not a true title.
I don’t like his rule, and it’s one of the few times I stray from The New Yorker or Mr. Gardner, Esq., as a style guide to emulate.
Steve:
In many matters, I worship at the altar of Garner’s Modern American English Usage, but I agree with you that this proscription is prissy.